Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

djberg96 (2603)

djberg96
  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of djberg96 (2603)

Sunday January 19, 2003
03:09 PM

RBuildMaker - day 1

[ #10074 ]
I got together with Michael Granger and Martin Chase yesterday, and we spent a few hours working out how we wanted things to work for what we hope will become Ruby's standard installation mechanism, ala Perl Makefile.PL, etc.

We're modeling our work on Module::Build but it won't be a straight port. Specifically, Michael plans to do a bit more when it comes to extensions. One thing he wants to do is create symbolic links for library specific versions, ala somelib.so.1 would be a link to somelib.so (or something like that - don't pester me with details).

Anyway, we all woke up this morning and realized the same thing - Windows doesn't support symlinks! We could abandoned the whole idea, but the thought occurred to me that maybe we could emulate symlinks with shortcuts (.lnk files).

The problem with this idea is that the .lnk format isn't 100% clear, and MS ain't sharing. However, I did manage to dig up a document at wotsit.org (by searching on 'shorcut'). Now I'm wondering if Perl, Python, Ruby, etc could benefit from an extension, and have the symlink function generate .lnk files instead of just crashing, as they do now.

In the meantime, I'm working on the simpler stuff.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Module::Build is still a work in progress, so if you come up with any ideas for the Ruby version that M::B doesn't have, please let Ken know, or just send email to the M::B list.
  • So doesn't Makefile.PL create a makefile?

    There has been some discussion of doing something like this, but some folks in the ruby community think that the make requirement might not be so good for folks on Windoze (some unfortunates are trapped on that platform).

    Also, this came over one of the ruby mailing lists today:
    A few of us Denver-based ruby hackers have started collaboration on a new
    library which we're tentatively calling ModuleBuilder, a hold-over from the
    perl module Module::Builder from which we'r
    • That would be us! Yes, we're trying to avoid the make requirement, and the thought of creating a Ruby version of make has come up.

      For now, you can find us in #mues on irc.freenode.net if you want to join in on this.

      Are you in the Denver area?

      • That would be us!
        Oh, what a coincidence ;-)
        Are you in the Denver area?
        No, I'm in the Portland area... I gave the ruby talk at the Portland Perlmongers a few weeks back.